Apple targets Galaxy S II, 9 other Samsung smartphones in new German suit - Page 3

Well, since I've clearly stated that I think you simply have screwed up values, I don't really see the point of this comment.


Uh, yeah, that's called PR spin. Are you really that gullible?


Except there aren't 2 legitimate sides to the criminal Google Books Program, nor to the Google's/Samsung's blatant knockoffs of iOS/iPhone. In point of fact, while there may be 2 sides to every story, one of them is often not in agreement with the facts, and therefore worthless.

Hint: the worthless one would be your side to this story.


You see, here you demonstrate that you really have no understanding of the issues and what's going on. If you did, you wouldn't ask a stupid question that undermines your own position. The clear and obvious answer is that Apple is going after Samsung because, of all the Android phone and tablet manufacturers, they are the ones who are blatantly ripping off Apple's designs, rather than doing their own. It's pretty straightforward, really.


I've read and understood your comments, they just don't make any sense.

And you still haven't addressed the issue of whether it's right or wrong to steal other people's work. It's a convenient point to ignore if you want to cling to your faith, but once you answer that, it's pretty clear that Apple is in the right here, and Google/Samsung in the wrong.

I don't really understand why these morally confused young boys today have so much trouble reasoning clearly. But, here we have another naive, misguided Internet lawyer, who's arguing a question of right or wrong, of whether Google/Samsung ripped off iOS/iPhone, and cites court decisions as though that makes some sort of point.

Perhaps you weren't aware, but the courts aren't really deciding whether Android and Samsung phones are cheap knockoffs of iOS and the iPhone -- i.e., whether Google/Samsung stole Apple's work. They are deciding narrow questions of law brought before them, and only those questions. Are you able to see the difference now, once it's been pointed out to you? Do you understand now why your little legalistic arguments are entirely beside the point?

There is just absolutely no question that Android is, and was meant to be, a knockoff of iOS. Everything about it and it's history tells us that it is. If you disagree, it's because you are denying reality. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact, and the facts support only the conclusion given here.

There is also absolutely no question that Samsung's handsets and tablets are, and are meant to be, knockoffs of the iPhone and iPad. In fact, in this case, it's been shown that Samsung has a history of doing this with product after product after product, and there is nothing unique about their theft of Apple's work. They've done this to many other companies before, and will likely continue to operate as thieves in the future. Stealing other companies' designs is just what they do.

So, when you come in here arguing that Google and Samsung have done no wrong, because of this little point of law, and this little court decision, and repeat talking points about rounded rectangles and community design, what you are really doing is supporting theft. What you are really arguing is that theft is OK as long as you can get away with it. In fact, you're all rather smug about that last point, which is all the more disturbing.

To repeat, Google and Samsung have stolen Apple's work. If you support them, you are saying that theft is ok (at least, if you can get away with it). This isn't hard to understand. What is hard to understand is how there are so many people out there whose values are so screwed up as to think like you do.

Now I'm regretting supporting the lowering of the signature height limit. I want to quote that whole post.

It's really, really easy to say Google, or Samsung or whoever "stole" from Apple. Samsung claims Apple uses stolen IP. So does Motorola. So does Kodak. HTC too. It's a little harder to show any of this is true as demonstrated by the dozens of stalled, dismissed or slow-moving lawsuits between Apple, Samsung and various other players.

There's even Chinese authors claiming Apple has stolen their copyrighted works and refuses to stop selling their books after requests/demands to remove them.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57...s-report-says/

Is there any case yet that has proven any Apple IP was used without permission by Samsung or vice-versa? I'll save everyone the trouble of looking. NO. So claiming as fact that either of them is using the others IP without permission is akin to Daniel's "vaporware" when blogging about imaginary or rumored devices. It doesn't really exist just because someone talks about it like it does.

OK, just so everyone is clear, Gatorguy isn't just a boy with screwed up values, he is a paid shill, with screwed up values.

As you can see, once again, he's focusing on the legal issues to avoid the real ones. (And, if Apple is selling copyrighted works without the right to do so, they're in the wrong too: two wrongs don't make a right, Gatorguy, so that's no defense of Google/Samsung, although, I suspect this will amount to nothing, since Apple has repeatedly demonstrated respect for copyrights, and other IP, like FRAND patents. More respect than the owners of the same in the latter instance.)

We don't need a "case", in the legal sense, to be "proven" to know that Google and Samsung are thieves who are producing cheap knockoffs of Apple's work. We can simply observe this to be the case. The evidence is so overwhelming against both Google and Samsung that to deny it is like denying that the Earth is round. It's simply patently obvious. (Pun intended.)

(That Android and Samsung products are knockoffs is so well documented in so many instances, that we don't need to "prove" it here, now. It's already firmly established as fact and well known. Denying this for the purpose of arguing about won't fly any longer.)

You seem to think you're asking some pretty compelling questions, which they might be if this were strictly a legal issus, although, some of your statements are false. (i.s., it's not the case that, "Apple ]has\\ not be able to win a similar case against Samsung.")

But, they aren't rea;;y that compelling when you consider that few if any of these cases have actually fully made their way through the courts -- most of them are still in early stages. Secondly, making a case in court, even when you are in the right, is not necessarily a slam dunk, and courts are not arbiters of truth, only law.

This is why the "legal" arguments here don't matter. They all amount to the same thing: "If Samsung hasn't been convicted, they aren't guilty of the crime." Well, OJ likes that sort of thinking, but it just isn't so.

Three are, however, about a million websites out there showing us all the details of how Samsung copied the iPhone and the iPad, and other products before that. They are a serial offender. They are "copyists". There simply isn't any question about that. Their argument, in fact, is that they shoul be allowed to be copyists. Your argument is until they are "convicted in court" it's ok whatever they do


Oh, please, not that stupid shit again. This is sort of the litmus test of the Android zealot's intelligence: will they make the Android came before iPhone, so Google can't have copied claim?

This is really the stupidest argument ever for a number of reasons. First of all, we know Apple was working on the iPhone for years before it was "announced", for years before Google acquired Android. We also know that "Android", before the announcement of the iPhone, was intended to be a Blackberry knockoff. Comes the iPhone and Google's realization that this will transform the landscape, and they very rapidly created a new version of Android that was completely different from what they had been working on.

Things do work differently in Android, though, don't they: iOS scrolling smooth, Android scrolling laggy. I guess Google just aren't that good at this programming thing.

Apple lost it's appeal in the Netherlands where they were trying to get a ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 based on another Community Design. The high court affirmed the lower court's ruling from August that Samsung's product is sufficiently different from Apple's claimed design.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/24/d...xy-tab-10-1-i/